Hillary Clinton welcomes Wasserman-Schultz to campaign as ‘honorary chair’

[KrazyK923]

I like, though, that the three EMails used as "proof" of the DNC actually doing something to interfere with the campaign were: recording a critical piece off MSNBC so they could comment on it, receiving a copy of an article critical of Hillary so they could respond to it, and having the gall to forward questions they wanted asked in an interview.

Corruption confirmed. Hillary needs to be JAILED!!!!!!!

[Mavick]

Yes because in elections, actually who wins and loses matters. Not how you feel about somebody. Do you think I believe Hillary Clinton is most in line with how I feel about the world? Fuck no. Sanders doesn't even as much as certain other people.

You think it's immature to look at ELECTIONS in a win/loss situation? I think it's immature to think that making yourself feel good about casting a vote is more important than, you know, not electing a fucking insane sociopath who wants to change the laws to make himself richer and set the country back for a generation.

So congratulations darling. I hope you feel really good about casting your vote for a candidate who has zero percent chance of ever winning a national election. I really hope your warm feelings is enough to save the country for the next generation. Shockingly, though, I don't think it will.

Keep on insulting me based on whatever you perceive my age to be because you're upset somebody talked about the actual reality of the situation. I have better things to do with my time than indulge your "but my feelies!" bullshit.

Who wins matters up until the point where out of the current choices a person feels it simply doesn't matter anymore. Again, this is just an example of you trying to juxtapose your feelings as if that's relevant to everyone else. Get out of your self-important bubble and learn to shut the fuck up once in awhile.

[KrazyK923]

Get out of your self-important bubble and learn to shut the fuck up once in awhile.

Says the person who advocates feelsies in terms of realism.

I do like your next approach to think I'm arguing from an emotional place. When the exact opposite is true. My personal feelings about Clinton are being put aside so I can stop an infinitely worse person from getting into office.

You're not even trying anymore.

[Reeve]

I like, though, that the three EMails used as "proof" of the DNC actually doing something to interfere with the campaign were: recording a critical piece off MSNBC so they could comment on it, receiving a copy of an article critical of Hillary so they could respond to it, and having the gall to forward questions they wanted asked in an interview.

Also amusing that this is considered such a big deal, when there was basically a full scale insurrection against Donald Trump within the Republican Party, and that was generally considered acceptable, or even good.

[Tijuana]

N commentator Donna Brazile will suspend her ties with the news network as she takes the reins of the Democratic National Committee after the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Politico quoted a CNN spokeswoman, who said via email on Sunday, “With news of Donna Brazile stepping in as interim chair for the Democratic National Committee, CNN and Brazile have mutually agreed to temporarily suspend her contract as a contributor for the network effective immediately. As a valued voice and commentator, CNN will revisit the contract once Brazile concludes her role.”

Brazile will serve as acting DNC chair until a permanent replacement for Wasserman-Schutlz can be selected.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign released a statement welcoming the ousted DNC chair as an “honorary chair” of her 2016 campaign.

“There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to the Republicans than Debbie,” Clinton said, “which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and in other key states.”

In a statement of her own, Wasserman-Schultz said, “I know that electing Hillary Clinton as our next president is critical for America’s future. I look forward to serving as a surrogate for her campaign in Florida and across the country to ensure her victory. Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as Party Chair at the end of this convention.”

The warm relations between Clinton, her staff and Wasserman-Schultz will likely be seen as a poke in the eye to progressives in the Democratic Party, who have long objected to the Florida congresswoman’s close relationship with payday lenders and other policies.

A group of emails hacked from DNC servers and released by Wikileaks painted an unflattering portrait of Wasserman-Schultz’s machinations to undermine the campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Now, the campaign and some cyber experts say that they have traced the hacks to Russian sources.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/07/hill...onorary-chair/

From the sound of the DNC hacking scandal, it would appear Debbie has been part of Hillary's campaign for quite some time.

[Mavick]

I replied to a short post, so perhaps I got the wrong idea, but the wording would seem to strongly suggest you're preoccupied with how you feel about the person rather than a detached rational analysis of what voting for a particular person will get you.

Just look closer at my use of the word "feel". I could say I feel someone is an asshat based 100% on logical deduction. I'm not saying emotion doesn't play into it, but it doesn't have to be governed by it.

[Pterodactylus]

"Outrage" du jour. What will tomorrow bring?

[Reeve]

Just look closer at my use of the word "feel". I could say I feel someone is an asshat based 100% on logical deduction. I'm not saying emotion doesn't play into it, but it doesn't have to be governed by it.

OK, so from a non-emotionally governed standpoint, who is likely to have a worse outcome for our country/the world? President Clinton, or President Trump?

[unbound]

rofl

She is the honorary chair of a campaign. It is the equivalent of being an associate producer...an honorary title only with absolutely zero power.

Obama's 2012 campaign had 24 people as honorary co-chairs including Eva Longoria, former Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, and a guidance counselor.

This is the funniest explosion of outrage over literally nothing that I've ever seen.

Keep it up lockedout.

[Mavick]

Says the person who advocates feelsies in terms of realism.

I do like your next approach to think I'm arguing from an emotional place. When the exact opposite is true. My personal feelings about Clinton are being put aside so I can stop an infinitely worse person from getting into office.

You're not even trying anymore.

I just simply don't care. Part of me thinks America needs to elect him to get it out of its system and see firsthand just how much our stupidity hurts us. The other part of me wants to see people like you who thought from the beginning that Hillary was inevitable finally and factually realize that she actually isn't and never was the better candidate. Granted that's a small part of me, but I won't deny its existence. And, to put it in a very simple way, sometimes you just have to fuck shit up badly enough that it gets fixed right rather than continue limping on with this terribly rigged political structure we have now.

[Pterodactylus]

Also amusing that this is considered such a big deal, when there was basically a full scale insurrection against Donald Trump within the Republican Party, and that was generally considered acceptable, or even good.

It's the classic republican double-standard (IOKIYAR).

[Tijuana]

OK, so from a non-emotionally governed standpoint, who is likely to have a worse outcome for our country/the world? President Clinton, or President Trump?

People don't even vote on what is best for the US, let alone the world. What on earth would make you ask that?

[Mavick]

I wasn't looking at your usage of "feel" so much as the talk of hating people or liking people being used to decide how you vote without any regard to outcomes of those decisions.

That's a fair point, I do actually hate both candidates and I can't deny that's not an emotional response. However, there is logic in there as well that goes with it, so in the end it doesn't really bother me to feel that way.

[mvaliz]

People don't even vote on what is best for the US, let alone the world. What on earth would make you ask that?

Please don't confuse your delusional way of living unconciously with how other people people live their lives.

[Tijuana]

Please don't confuse your delusional way of living unconciously with other people.

So you are saying the average US voter is looking out for Sweden or whatever when they vote? Ignorance must be bliss...

[DisposableHero]

OK, so from a non-emotionally governed standpoint, who is likely to have a worse outcome for our country/the world? President Clinton, or President Trump?

More than just the next four years are on the line in this election, as with every election. The democratic party is not going to do any introspection about their policies, or their corruption until they lose an election. You can argue the supreme court seat, and the general meltdown of the republican party, and total wildcard that is president Trump make it far too dangerous to invoke that crisis of conscience in this election cycle, and I respect that opinion, but it only goes downhill from here. Corruption will only become more brazen and more universal within the democratic party until they lose.

[Reeve]

More than just the next four years are on the line in this election, as with every election. The democratic party is not going to do any introspection about their policies, or their corruption until they lose an election. You can argue the supreme court seat, and the general meltdown of the republican party, and total wildcard that is president Trump make it far too dangerous to invoke that crisis of conscience in this election cycle, and I respect that opinion, but it only goes downhill from here. Corruption will only become more brazen and more universal within the democratic party until they lose.

In addition to your quite correct argument about the SCOTUS seats which could affect this country massively for the next 30-50 years, I'd also argue that a political party having a favored candidate that they promote isn't exactly "corruption." It's kind of the whole purpose of political parties.

[Deleted]

Bernie telling people to vote on clinton just proves is a big piece of shit.

The guy that wanted to end with corruption and lobbys and suports the bitch is wall street all the way

Good job on shiting hard on your suporters

[Tijuana]

In addition to your quite correct argument about the SCOTUS seats which could affect this country massively for the next 30-50 years, I'd also argue that a political party having a favored candidate that they promote isn't exactly "corruption." It's kind of the whole purpose of political parties.

How sad is it though that we have to consider SCOTUS as a factor? The intention of the entity is that they make judgments based on law, not politics.

Also, you are dead wrong about the intentions of the party. Many parties simply nominate who they want. But, the DNC holds a primary, very clearly asking constituents to make the choice.

[Mavick]

In addition to your quite correct argument about the SCOTUS seats which could affect this country massively for the next 30-50 years, I'd also argue that a political party having a favored candidate that they promote isn't exactly "corruption." It's kind of the whole purpose of political parties.

The fallacy to your argument is that the party doesn't have a candidate yet, that doesn't become official until Thursday. But they clearly favored one from the beginning, as demonstrated, and that is the issue with many people.